________________
"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1373 his own original presentation. He also gives some other views not mentioned directly by his earlier masters, especially the views of 'The Navyas' or moderns. These moderns are not mentioned by name. But our impression is that contrary to the views as expressed by our guru prof. R. C. Parikh in his critical edition of the ‘Kavyaprakāśa-khandana' of Siddhicandra, we believe that the view of the moderns' was very much in circulation in the circle of literary critics in the times of J. But surely it was not Siddhicandra, as Prof. Parikh wants us to believe. On the contrary Siddhicandra seems to be posterior to J. as he seems to summerise the views as expressed in the R.G. But one thing is certain that the navyas were against taking rasa to be of the form of unaloyed bliss only.
They, believed that the nature of rasa is not absolute bliss', but is a sort of a mixture of happiness and unhappiness - i.e. "sukha-duhkhā"tmako rasah.” This trend was already noted in the A.bh. itself while explaining the ‘ādi' in "harşādīns ca adhigacchanti", the famous words of Bharata. But this view is directly articulated in the Natyadarpana of Rāmacandra and Gunacandra, so far as available documents are concerned. The navyas were in favour of this. The navyas had other things also to say about rasa. This will be discussed in all details in the next chapter.
For the present in this chapter, we will now turn our attention to some other works on dramaturgy such as the Daśa-rupaka, the Nātva-darpana, the Bhăva-prakāśana, the Rasārnava-sudhākara, and The Nātaka-laksana-ratnakosa. Bhānudatta is taken up earlier for his work is not a work on dramaturgy, while Śāradātanaya is taken up here for his work is both a work on poetics as well as dramaturgy. We will also deal, by the end of this chapter with Rūpa and Jeeva Goswami's work as they have something special to say on rasa. We will begin with the Daśarupaka (DR.) of Dananjaya.
The DR. along with the commentary 'Avaloka' of Dhanika is a major work on dramaturgy after the NS. of Bharata. The alamkārikas that preceeded Anandavardhana, i.e. from Bhāmaha to Rudrata, had avoided a direct discussion on drśya-kāvya i.e. visual art-forms, and also a full discussion on rasa and topics that go with the same. Rudrata of course had something concerning rasa, nāyaka, nāyikā etc., but primarily his work also was not dedicated to dramaturgy and discussion on rasa in the centre. With the DR. and other works on dramaturgy mentioned above, a new trend is seen wherein dramaturgy is in focus as against poetics. Rasa of course is a major topic with these and we will pick up a critical presentation of what these works have to offer, especially concerning the topic of 'rasa'.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
